Listening to Shel Holtz and Neville Hobson The Holtz and Hobson Report it occurred to me how many different worlds co-exist alongside each other and yet never really interact.

Shel and Neville's podcast is devoted to blogging and the space where 'communication and technology meet'. They got me thinking about two big issues.

First, information overload:  One of the subjects they are talking about is badly targeted PR spam - and as we are all continuously exposed to an almost infinite flux of information it's a relevant discussion even for those of us who don't receive PR spam specifically. I think the general view (including a really interesting intervention from Dan York) was that originators should do a little more research about the intended recipient before pushing the send button.

I have a different view, which is that there is so much stuff out there that the onus is on the individual to pick and choose what they want to 'consume'. This what we do when we pick a TV programme or read a newspaper, we go for what is relevant and interesting to us in our media choices. The concept of the self segmenting audience builds on the idea that people 'pull' information to them from a broad flow - is there a better way of ensuring relevance? Hold that thought.......

The second idea is more indirect. Whenever I listen or talk to guys like Shel or Neville I always have the feeling that I'm eavesdropping on a conversation that is going on in a different world. It's really interesting and I wish I knew more so that I could join in, but they are so far down the road in their field that I really don't think I could say anything they haven't heard before.

What really strikes me here is that almost every conversation I listen to has this unique specialist component. It could be the gardners in my local pub talking about the secret of their shallots, or the football fans who can reference every result of every game their team has ever played, or my kids discussing the geneaology of their favourite band (whose name I've never heard). It is humbling in one way, but at the same time the idea that there is so much to learn out there is really exciting.

Like everybody else, I listen to people I know. If a friend recommends something to me I'm much more likely to go for that option than in response to a random advertising hit. It's word of mouth, of course, and older than the hills and its interesting to know that the online community is developing tools which perform the same function in virtual space. But it is still a closed system. And I remain a self-selecting audience of one, (or is that selection simply a function of identity)?

In this context, I still can't know, or even seek to discover, what I don't know exists in the first place. So I am effectively stuck with a self limiting 'golden' thread of interests. It is a remarkable challenge to access other world views in anything but the most superficial way. But as we are all so deeply interconnected and interdependent, through economics and technology, it is a challenge we have to face.

When I talk to organisations with a long history of unsuccessful change implementation, I realise very quickly that there are no easy answers. Formulaic, ready made, solutions just don't cut it and there may be organisational change issues that are simply to profound and to difficult to handle.

It's all been tried before and as a result there is a lot of world weary cynicism - 'we are tired of change, tired of trying'. The weariness can pervade the whole organisation from top to bottom. These companies have employed the smartest people they can find to try and crack the problem of change, but it just doesn't seem to work.

I am starting to wonder if there is a hidden barrier to change that has something to do with the essential nature of corporate hierarchy: With the way in which power dynamics and hierarchical relationships distort organisational focus.

John Kotter, in his classic book 'Leading 'Change', writes about creating a guiding coalition. Such a coalition can help 'develop the right vision, communicate it to large numbers of people, eliminate...key obstacles, generate short term wins, lead and manage dozens of change projects, and anchor new approaches deep in the organisations culture'.

This powerful concept has been picked up by many companies who interpret it's message as a need to focus their energy on engaging senior managers; securing 'buy in' and 'commitment' and demonstrable leadership. These managers will happily pay lip service to the new initiative and they are, of course, delighted to be invited to join the guiding coalition. But this is because it serves their hidden agenda, in reality their overarching interest is personal status, their position in the hierarchy.

Professor Kotter identifies this problem very precisely. He says, 'When trust is present, you will usually be able to create teamwork. When it is missing, you won't'. You can't have trust when there is a hidden agenda.

These managers don't want to make any wrong moves, they are risk averse. They are concerned with preserving their powerbase. They are distinguished by their adherence to the behaviour patterns that 'got them where they are today'. They will agree a grand strategy if they can see that it serves their interests and they will support it just as long as it continues to do so. In reality, they don't trust anybody. They tend to be secretive and they resist any move to transparency (always a 'joy' when you are working with them as a communications professional). And they effectively 'contaminate' those in their sphere, especially the people they manage.

But they are not necessarily 'bad guys'. This behaviour is forced on them by the essential nature of the 'pecking order' in organisational hierarchy. It is arguably the biggest obstacle to change and it is endemic in the way we run our businesses.

So it seems to me that the key to unlocking this perpetual cycle of self interest is to find ways to establish trust and a shared purpose with common sense and decency. Build engagement and work to the principle that achieving successful change means achieving success for all. But first, and most important of all, identify the behaviour for what it is, surface the resistance and confront it openly and honestly.

I spent two days last week working with a client a few miles from the ancient city of Maastricht in the Netherlands. It was a meeting with an impressive group of individuals - a CEO, two board members, a chief scientist, programme managers and a range of subject experts.

There is no doubt that all of the attendees were more informed, more experienced in their field and probably a great deal more intelligent than I am. 

So why was I there?

My role was to facilitate. To help the group articulate their positions and reach an agreement on the way forward. Thinking back on those two very intensive days, it occurs to me how much of my work is simply facilitation - helping unlock the knowledge and creativity of others. It is humbling to consider this and strangely liberating at the same time.

In this case, we were there to help develop a strategy for corporate social responsibility (CSR). As a result of our efforts it could be that the company will decide to set up an endowment fund that will see a flow of funding for science and technical education and for water management in the developing world. Corporately they are in the business of trying to help alleviate poverty and ignorance.

I have a very small part to play in this, but I am proud to play it.

And this thought does feed back to what I think is a core business reason for doing CSR. The feeling that you can be proud, as an employee, of what your company is doing in the world - above and beyond providing great customer service and fantastic products. That you can be proud that a company can act - "out of conviction" - as the inspirational CEO put it.

That there is something more to being a company than the pursuit of profit. That there is a place for serious moral conviction at a corporate level.

Reflecting on working and travelling overseas I am struck by the openess of accidental encounters. The willingness of people to help a stranger. The gift of friendship even if only for a few brief moments.

I've noticed, as well, that this impulse to support people who need help seems to be a common human characteristic. It transcends race, religion, culture and crosses generations and gender. It seems to have deep roots in our collective psyche. What is going on?

Although this basic state of goodwill seems universal - it obviously doesn't always work that way. The exception does prove the rule in this case.

Take, for example, an incident of racial abuse last Friday on the 1722 for Hereford out of Paddington railway station, London.

The train was very crowded as it always is on Friday evening and a black couple had had the foresight to book their seats in advance. Somebody had occupied one of the seats. When they asked him to move they were subjected to a sustained torrent of abuse. It was bullying and demeaning and deeply racist. The coach was shocked into silence.

A passenger who witnessed this fetched the train manager. She confronted the racist. Ordered him out of the seat. Called the transport police and had the man, a middle aged business type in pinstripes, removed from the train.

Our train manager, better described as the 'guard' (a good title for this 5' 3" lioness), then made an announcement apologising for the delay and to those who had been affected by the incident. She thanked the people who had supported her.

So here, on a regular commuter train out of London, was a demonstration of physical and moral courage by an empowered individual. She could do this because she had guts and knew she had the support of the other passengers

I don't want to labour the point of telling this story, but the moral must be clear. It is OK to stand up to evil and ugliness wherever you encounter it. You will find allies, supporters and others of goodwill who will join you.

Sometimes the relationships of power in the workplace can make this hard. Those of us who work inside organisations have an obligation to help make it a safe place to challenge the bullies and the racists.

A place where the friendship of strangers can flourish.